No, that is not what open banking is about at all. It just means that your financial data is not held in a prison by your banking provider. It means you have control over who you share that data with so that you can get value added services using your data.
Well, this is a crock of shit. These guys want to discredit the regulator so that future money grabbers such as these will find it easier. I hope they get roasted over coals by the SEC.
Yes of course. If the actions of a collective group are causing harm to others, I expect members of the collective to feel responsible. This is how we build a caring society.
If my actions have caused pain and suffering to others, whether deliberate or not, it does distress me until I have alleviated that somehow. If I do not have a way to alleviate their pain, the guilt of having inconvenienced them stays with me for a long time. That is how I stop myself from doing such things again in the future.
A lot of comments are suggesting workarounds. This behaviour by Google is atrocious. They are causing massive inconvenience to some people (albeit a very small number) just because they want to show off their nice knowledge panel.
Even one person's life inconvenienced is one too many. People working at Google: where is your conscience? If one of your family member was affected like this by a service provider who you have no control over, how would you feel?
As a vegetarian, I always have a moral dilemma when choosing dietary supplements. Perhaps I don't have to face these dilemmas if I can include lab grown meat in my diet therefore obviating the need for supplements. But having been a lifelong vegetarian, it still feels odd. Objectively looking at it, lab grown meat seems to be a good idea. I'm not entirely sure of the "morality" or ethics of it. Will take some getting used to, but if this gives rise to innovations in the synthesizing of supplements such as collagen then I'm all for it.
It is a bit like "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". I have felt the urge to respond with something witty and scathing to a story online, only to realise after a moment's reflection that my response would be irrelevant in several scenarios. The disappointment that follows for wasting a witty response...that takes some resisting.
This has probably something to do with big tech companies putting out highly polished products for "free" while making money in no-so-obvious ways. People have been conditioned to expect high quality work for free.
Instead of expecting corporate users to pay (which can be difficult, corporate finance depts are good at spending large sums of money, but suck at small expenses), or acknowledge use (company policies might mean employees are not allowed to), perhaps the major hosting providers such as Github and Gitlab can directly remunerate open source repo maintainers depending on the popularity of the hosted repo? Surely they make a lot of money by more and more devs adopting their service?
Edit: I am the owner of an open source repo on Github which was quite popular a while ago, but fell into disrepair because I could no longer find the time to maintain it. So I understand the pain of this person.